I usually judge arguments on their merits, but on this case I'll make an exception and judge by the credibility of the author: that article is not worth reading. David Gerard is a permabear who has been criticizing crypto for about a decade now. Everything that happens in crypto is bad according to him. Ethereum moves to PoS? Bad. Ethereum doesn't move to PoS? Bad. There's no event in crypto that would be positive according to him.
Oh, that guy. He tends to be technically incorrect regularly and gets rather arsey when you call him on it.
He is a crank, he does post here sometimes to bicker with you which can be amusing
The core axiom is unfalsifiable because it hinges on asserting the intent, and relying on other unfalsifiable questions to try and ascertain intent ("why do decentralization if not to avoid legal risk of doing bad things?"), but the answers proposed by crypto proponents aren't ideals or scenarios that the writer empathizes with, it seems